Skip to main content
1:00 am
one will earn $11,000 less per year and $500,000 less in the lifetime. one is five times likely to be sexually harassed. one is twice as likely to be a single parent living in poverty. why? because one is a girl. it's not right, it's not fair. it is time for women's equality act. [applause] >> we passed marriage equality and let's make history again and pass a woman's equality act in the state of new york. [applause]
1:01 am
women's equality act would have a 10-point agenda. shatter the glass ceiling by passing a equal pay law. number two, have zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace, period. number three, strengthen employment lending and credit discrimination laws. number four, strengthen human trafficking laws. number five, end family status discrimination. number six, prevent landlords from denying housing based on the source of funds.
1:02 am
number seven, stop housing discrimination for victims of the domestic violence. number eight, stop pregnancy discrimination once and for all. number nine, protect women from domestic violence. number 10, protect a woman's freedom of choice and enact the reproductive health act because it is her body, it is her choice. because it is her body it's her choice. because it's her body it's her choice. i have been blessed with three daughters.
1:03 am
many of you know them, as a matter of fact my parents blessed with 14 grandchildren, 13 are girls. so we have been significantly blessed with women. so we feel a special obligation. maybe it is a man's world but it is not a man's world in new york, not anymore. we're going to pass this women's equality act we're going to change the life for my daughters, your daughter, your sisters, your wife, and your significant other and every person in this room. every person in this room. we're going to do it this year. the department of public safety, gun violence, has been on a rampage as we know firsthand and
1:04 am
we know painfully. we must stop the madness, my friends. in one word it is just enough. it has been enough. [applause] we need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, balanced, measured, we respect hunters and sportsman. this is not taking away people's guns. i own a gun, i own a shotgun, i've hunted, i've shot. that is not what this is about. it is about ending the unnecessary risk of high- capacity assault rifles. that is what this is about.
1:05 am
we have a seven-point agenda. number one, the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation, period. number two, close the private sale loophole by requiring background checks. number three, ban high-capacity magazines. number four, enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use. number five, keep guns from people who are mentally ill. number six, ban direct internet sales of ammunition in new york. number seven, create a check on all ammunition purchases. new york state led the way on guns once before. it was sullivan's law of 1911 which was the first in the
1:06 am
nation gun control law. it required a permit for the position of a handgun. new york was the first. it is still on the books. new york led the way then, let's pass safe and legal legislation and lead the way again in saving lives. [applause] when it comes to government reform we all believe in government otherwise we would not be in this room today. for government to be effective we have to be trusted. the more we're trusted the more effective we are. it all about the relationship we have with the citizens of this state. we must end the campaign to finance reform. new york currently has the highest contribution limits among all states, third lowest rate of participation. i want to propose the disclose
1:07 am
new york plan which is simple. it is the nation's most aggressive disclosure law, period. what it says is disclose all political and lobbying contributions within 48 hours electronically, period. right now -- right now the disclosure law says you can disclose every six months, sometimes a year, sometimes never. we would apply this to all political and lobbying organizations, political committee, political party, any contribution within 48 hours is disclosed over $500. there is nothing like it in the country. implement a public finance system based on new york city. it works well in new york city, it will work well in new york state.
1:08 am
we need to lower the contribution limits for all offices political parties, house keeping accounts because the limits are too high. government reform also has to be brought to local governments. which like the state are facing difficult financial difficulties. we propose setting up the financial restructuring system prom. it will be a joint effort joint task force. to help work that locality through its financial problems. there is no one size fits all. i'm looking at a number of cities and they are all in different situations. some have too much debt, some have high expenses, some have short-term cash needs. let's bring them in individually, if they are in financial distress, we will sit with them, come up with a
1:09 am
restructuring plan that makes sense and we'll work with them on the restructuring plan. [applause] responding to the crisis, we have to do everything we've outlined above. but, we also have the added responsibility of needing to address hurricane sandy. let's start by learning what has happened. we temp paneled four commissions right after the hurricane to look at the varies aspects of the storm and lessons learned. they did extraordinary work and i ask us to give them a round of applause now and recognize the chairman who worked very hard. [applause]
1:10 am
first thing we have to learn is to accept the fact, i believe it is a fact, that climate change is real. it is denial to say this is -- each of these situations is a once in a lifetime. there is a 100 year flood every two years now. it is inarguably that the sea is warmer and there is a changing weather pattern. the time to act is now. we must lower the greenhouse gas emission cap and let's make a real difference on climate change by reducing the co2 cap. we must also increase the local renewable power sources. also increase alternative power, generate electricity which will reduce the reliance on the large power plants.
1:11 am
we must understand the needs of coastal communities because they pose special challenges and many of them are man-made. let's take a look at lower manhattan. this was lower manhattan in 1609. this is lower manhattan now. all man-made filled areas. this is lower manhattan with the sandy storm surge. you can see that the man-made areas are the vulnerable areas to the storm surge. it is the way they are filled, it is the way they were constructed. we propose to recreate new york's smart home program. instead of just rebuilding a
1:12 am
home today that we may rebuild again two years from now, three years from now, four years from now. we built it back once but we built it back once right and we mitigate for the environmental damage and disaster. i would rather pay more and put a house on piles today than rebuild that house. three times. there are some places that people may choose not to build back. i've talked to homeowner who is have dealt with serious floods, flee, four, five times. many of them are saying i don't want to do it again. i would rather buy out the parcel and move on. there were some parcels that mother nature owns. she might only visit once every
1:13 am
few years but she owns the parcel. when she comes to visit, she visits. we want to run a program that will provide the funds that will buyout those homeowners who don't want to rebuild and they want to move to higher ground and that would be smart. we must harden our infrastructure, we must harden the new york city subway system. new york is a marvel because how high it builds. manhattan is a march val because how deep it builds. parts of manhattan are a 15 stories deep with infrastructure, subways, water tunnels, etc. you can't allow those 15 floors below to flood. it would dehabilitate the city for a long time. we need to close tunnels, roll down doors, so the city does not flood. the technology is there, it is expensive but necessary. we must harden our airports.
1:14 am
we can't close the airports every time there is a storm. we need to put in pumps, high gates, etc. we saw the chaos that the fuel system caused. that was the reduction of supply for a day and a half. that's all that was. a day and a half break in supply caused weeks of chaos. we have to have a program that requires gasoline stations that are strategically located to have backup generators and the state should have a fuel reserve to protect new yorkers short term in case of a fuel reduction. [applause] we must hardened our utilities and get ready for the next storm and have a p.f.c.
1:15 am
that requires utilities to come up with a real plan. we need to redesign our power system. it said "real regulatory enforcement teeth into the public force commission which has been too long been a toothless tiger." when it comes to the long island power authority it has never worked, it never will, it is time to abolish that, period. they are all from queens, those people. we want to prioritize the long island service which will be regulated by a p.f.c. and we want to do it in a way that protects the rate payers
1:16 am
and freezes the rate for a period of a year. there will be no increase for the payer, there will be a better provider. we want to establish a world- class emergency response net work. we'll have a uniformed training system and protocols. we want all emergency personnel in this state to receive the same training so we all have the same protocols, we all have the same understanding and there is no communication issues in the middle of a crisis. we want the state to have a certification program where it certifies emergency workers who went through this course. we want the state to establish a stockpile. so next crisis we have what we need, we have the generators, the water supply, we have the meals and we don't have to worry
1:17 am
about trying to locate them in the middle of the crisis. we want to capitalize in the new york spirit. we want to create a statewide volunteer core. it will people all across the state that will receive light training and will be available to volunteer if a disaster hits another part of the state. we'll also organize them by skill set. we need it on long island, desperately, electricians and we could not find them. we want to have that work done and organized before. thank you, ed. we want to establish a nonprofit network to help coordinate the emergency response. we want to have a itself campaign to prepare citizens because they are all in home first respondents and every
1:18 am
family, every mother, every father should know what should happen if god for bid they are in an emergency situation in their home. superstorm sandy was the largest storm the hit northeast in the recorded history. we need we deserve federal assistance. [applause] first, i want to tell you that i've worked extensively with our delegation and the government in washington for new yorkers, working the same way the government in albany is working for new yorkers. we're not republicans, we're not democrats, we're not independents, we're new yorkers and we're working together for
1:19 am
the good of new york and that is exactly what the delegation is doing. i am so proud of them. i would ask them to stand so we can recognize them. [applause] congressman peter king, congressman maloney. thank you for your service. thank you for your work, thank you for all your efforts. we requested $60 billion in storm aid for new york and new jersey. so far, congress has appropriated $9 billion. my friends, that is too little and too late. it has nothing to do with the way that congress is acted in the past. this is long been established
1:20 am
that in a face of a disaster, the national government comes in to help. why? because it would add insult to injury to say to the damaged area you have to finance your own reconstruction. the area is injured. the federal government comes in, provides reconstruction funds, the area gets back on its feet, it is good for the area the entire country. this is an unprecedented situation in modern times where the federal government has not been responsive in the face of a disaster. and hurricane sandy, after hurricane katrina is one of the worst disasters in modern political history in this country. look at what they done in the past. san francisco earthquake, they had funding eight days later. hurricane andrew in florida, 30 days later.
1:21 am
earthquake in 1994, 26 days later. hurricane itself bale 26 days later. hurricane katrina nine days later. this is day 73 and still counting, that is not acceptable, my friends. [applause] our message to congress is clear. new york is united deliver the aid we need and deserve, do not play politics with the state of new york. do not bring your political washington gridlock to new york. do not play politics while peel -- people
1:22 am
need to be back in their homes and small businesses need money to open their door. remember new york because new york will not forget i promise you. [applause] so in closing, what is the state of the state? the answer is my friends, we have work to do. you look at all the initiatives we laid out today you get a sense. we also have a 300 page book we're going to give you as a going away present to read tonight in case you missed any of it. [laughter] the agenda that we lay out today is clearly the most ambition agenda of the three that i've outlined in the state of the states.
1:23 am
it was an ambitious government. it is more of a function of the need of the time. we need to do everything we've been doing with the economy, education, etc. we also need to address the plague and scourge of gun violence. we need to address hurricane sandy. so, yes, it is an aggressive agenda. it is a lot of work. but they elect us to lead, my friends. we will. they elect us to perform and we will. we have proven that we can lead. we have proven that we can perform. we know that with these challenges at hand that is exactly what we must now do. we have daunting challenges. no doubt. but these challenges also pose exciting opportunities. yes, it is hard to reform education. i know the politics of it.
1:24 am
i know the problems, i know the issues. but, can you imagine how smart this state would be when we actually educate all our children to the best of the god given potential. when every black child and every white child and every urban child is educated to their full potential. i know helping the economy is hard. i know it has been decades of decline. can you imagine how successful our economy is going to be when that upstate economic engine is running at full speed and all of our cities are at full gain. i know women is have been treated unfairly for a long time. i know it is cultural. i know it is historic.
1:25 am
i know it is difficult. can you imagine what this society could achieve when our women fully participate as equal partners in everything we do? i know -- i know the issue of gun control is hard. i know it is political. i know it is controversial but we're proposing today common sense measures. i say to you forget the extremists, it is simple. no one hunts with an assault rifle. no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. too many innocent people have died already. and the madness now has to get reasonable gun control in the state of new york. make this state safer. save lives. set an example for the rest of
1:26 am
the nation. let them look at new york and say this is what you can do and this is what you should do. this is new york, the progressive capitol. you show them how we lead. [applause] we can do it. we've done it before we can do it again. i know -- i know the sandy reconstruction is going to be hard. i know that we are paid a dear price. i know that families are continuing to pay a price. but i also know we have an extraordinary opportunity to not just rebuild but to build back better.
1:27 am
we can rebuild a better society than we had. we can rebuild thousand miles of roads, we can improve homes, we can get control of utility companies that have been out of control for too long. we can rise back from the ashes and we can be smarter and stronger than ever. we can modernize. i know there is a silver lining to this storm. that is the way that new yorkers came together. in our darkest moment we shine the brightest. in the worst of times, the best of people came out. there was an outpouring support upstate and downstate, the first responders were heroes, yes. but average citizens showed up one after the other after the other and they were there just
1:28 am
because they wanted to help. just because they cared. just because they loved. just because they were new yorkers and they saw other new yorkers in need. they saw the commonality among us. they didn't see the differences, we weren't black and white and rich and poor we were new yorkers. we were united. we were one and there is energy the in that unity. that is new york at its best. that is new york fulfilling its potential. that is new york fulfilling the dream. that is new york the laboratory of the american experiment of democracy. that is new york honoring the lady in the harbor, the statue of liberty who holds the torch and says you are all invited. i don't care the color of your skin or how much money you have in your pocket.
1:29 am
you come here and we will invest in you, work with you, and we want you to do well. we'll educate you. we'll give you health care because we believe in community. we believe when you are raised we are all raised. that is new york at its finest. so my friends, what is the state of new york state? the state of new york state is that new york state is rising. new york state is rising because it's more unified than ever before. new york state is rising to build back better and stronger than ever before. new york state is rising to build a smarter, stronger state than we ever had before. new york state is rising with a passion and a commitment to make this state better than it's ever been with a brighter future than it has ever had for your family and my family and new york is rising.
1:30 am
with us together as one committed to that vision and making it a reality this year. thank you and god bless you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> next, the removal of troops scheduled for 2014. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, ladies and
1:31 am
gentlemen. i am delighted to have you all. distinguished guests. it is pretty rare to get three extraordinary ambassador sitting next to one another. each has tremendous familiarity with the subject. the council has been working on these issues for a number of years. this is the fourth anniversary of our south asia center. some of you may remember a few years ago the council did a substantial report with respect to afghanistan. the then-head of the council became the national security adviser, jim jones. we followed up on the work continuously over the last several years. this is the latest installment, if you will. i think you all know we are at an inflection point, with respect to afghanistan. a lot of important decisions coming. president karzai is here to meet with president obama on friday.
1:32 am
what is said here, i am sure, will shape the contours of that meeting. we have ambassador james dobbins, who was our u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, among many other things. he is now at the rand institute. we have ambassador kahn, who was the foreign minister, and i believe is the ambassador to china. we have the ambassador of afghanistan to the united states. all of whom have been intimately involved with respect to the important issues regarding pakistan, with respect to the important issues regarding the region. we called the event "back to the future." some people have spoken before about this, and what we mean by that. i think we will let that emerged as the discussion goes on. we know we have a lot of fundamental issues to talk
1:33 am
about. certainly, military presence has been an issue talked about in the newspapers all lot. governance is an important issue. technical issues, such as what type of agreements might be signed between the u.s. and afghanistan, are important. the role of pakistan. many others. with that, let me turn to our three speakers, each of whom will speak for six to 10 minutes, roughly speaking. then we'll open it up to dialogue, with the audience. i will give you the floor. >> my responsibilities for afghanistan go back to 2001. it is fair to say i was present at the creation of at least the current regime in kabul. i started by looking back and trying to spot the things we did wrong. it strikes me that there were three fundamental errors, two of which are perceived at the time
1:34 am
and tried to do something about, and one of which i failed to perceive entirely and did nothing about. one was the decision not to deploy any american or international peacekeepers. we had a country that had no police force and no army. we decided security would be an afghan responsibility in the aftermath of the fall of the taliban. i think that was a major mistake. the second was to allow the coalition we had successfully built for the war and for the peace conference to disintegrate. iran had been very helpful. week rebuffed offers of further help. pakistan had at least then not actively and helpful. but we failed to keep them up to that standard in the succeeding years. the third error which i failed to perceive was a failure to pursue reconciliation much
1:35 am
earlier than we finally did. there were a certain proportion of the taliban leadership that were prepared to be cooperative, that would have collaborated. instead, we sent them to guantanamo, and sent a negative signal to those who might consider who being coopted into the new system. it took us almost a decade to reverse that policy. nevertheless, despite these problems, and despite the fact that now, more than 10 years on, we are still engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign in afghanistan, i think we have come a longer way than many of us realize. some of this is reflected in a recent poll the asia society put out a few weeks ago, which showed, in contradiction to american opinion about afghanistan and america, a
1:36 am
fairly high degree of optimism. 52% of afghans think their country is going in the right direction. this is up from last year, not down. 53% say they are more prosperous now than they were five years ago. the reasons they cite are better security, more schools, more reconstruction. it is also interesting to point out that the non-optimistic side is not 48%, because there are some who are undecided. the non-optimistic side cited were security as their concern. clearly, there are differences in perception. interestingly, support for reconciliation, coopting the taliban, is at 81%, very high. not that high in the communities
1:37 am
that are not pashtun, but still well over 50% in those communities. confidence in the afghan army, 93%, in the police, 82%. in the government itself, 75%. those figures compare pretty favorably to comparable polling in the united states, of our confidence in our own institutions. interestingly, 79% of the people think the government is corrupt. it is not just that they were giving answers they thought the pollsters wanted. there were quite critical of the government. but they also had a balanced approach. they can cite the government as being, on balance, better than most they have experienced in their lifetime, while feeling it is corrupt and something ought to be done about it. the polls after the presidential
1:38 am
election several years ago showed the same results. that is, most afghans thought that karzai's presidential election had been very corrupt, and most of them were very satisfied with the result. they could hold both concepts, which our own media seems unable to do. we recently did a study which i think puts afghanistan in some perspective. that is rand. it is about to be published. we looked at 20 post-conflict reconstruction efforts, peacekeeping and peace enforcement. bosnia, kosovo, somalia, haiti, iraq, afghanistan and, and smaller u.n. once in a dozen or so other places. we evaluated them on a number of criteria. did it produce peace, which is why most of them were deployed? also, did they produce more democratization?
1:39 am
we used freedom house scores to rank them. did they produce better government? we used world bank indexes. every year, the rate every government in the world. did the economy expand? again, world bank and imf figures. and did the lot of the citizens improve? we used the undp human development index, which looks at levels of income, but also education, health, and other criteria. in democratization -- afghanistan did not pass the peace test. 16 of the 20 cases did. that is a failure. in democratization, it was about in the middle. it improved its freedom house score by 15%. in government effectiveness, he
1:40 am
interestingly, and in distinction to everything we heard, it ranks second of the 20 countries. it had the second-highest improvement. it is not the second highest in the end, but its rate of improvement is the second highest. in per-capita gdp, again, the second highest. per-capita gdp has increased by 130% since 2001. interestingly, in the human development index, it was the highest. of all 20, it showed the greatest improvement in human development, which is a combination of standard of living, education, and health, those kinds of criteria. it is easy to see why afghans tend to be more optimistic than
1:41 am
we think they should be. indeed, in many cases, more optimistic than americans about america's own future. longevity is way up. infant mortality is way down. literacy is up. if the number of afghan children in school today stay in school 10 years, the literacy rate will be three times higher than it is. asia society did not pull in the most violent areas. the numbers almost certainly would be lower in those areas. someone has to account for that. the number of areas they failed to pull in and are relatively limited. there was a long story in "the new york times" today, on the front page, about levels of anxiety over troop withdrawals. the anxiety is in the area's last cleared the most exposed to taliban return.
1:42 am
the story is about high levels of concern and pessimism. i am not arguing that it is not correct. i am simply arguing it is not reflective of the attitude in most of the country, as far as it can be determined. clearly, there are two transitions coming up. there is the transition from a u.s. and nato-led operation to afghan-led operations, and the transition from a karzai government to a somebody else- led government. the later transition is by far the more dangerous and difficult, and the more uncertain. i do not think the afghan army is going to run away in 2014, but it is possible the afghan government will collapse in 2014, as the result of a failed transition. by that, i do not mean the election will be irregular, necessarily.
1:43 am
a regular election could produce an unusual result. it is a two-round system. it is possible that in the first round, he would have 58 candidates. --25 candidates. none would get more than 10% of the vote. you have a second round of two candidates, neither of whom had gotten 10% of the vote. that kind of result probably would not be enough to hold the country together. i think the concern about corruption in the government is accurate, real, and valid. but it does miss the point that it is as much corruption as formal institutions that hold that country together. karzai has built an effective patronage network that allows
1:44 am
him to exert significant influence across sectarian lines and across geographic lines. formal institutions that have been built since 2001 simply are not up to exerting that degree of control and influence. the big question is, can a successor both assume control over the formal institutions of government, but also have a broad enough patronage network, a political machine in enough of the country so that he can at least replicate karzai's success in this regard. i think as we tend to evaluate the forthcoming transition in afghanistan, that is the question we need to be asking. >> thanks very much. i think that puts out a lot of food for thought, to say the least.
1:45 am
>> thank you. at the outset, he let me say that the year 2012 has clarified some of the situations which we are discussing today. for example, there is an improvement of relationship between the u.s. and pakistan. there is better coordination between afghanistan and pakistan. also, there appears to be a better clarity in the u.s. positions relating to the two really important questions, which is withdrawal and reconciliation. i will offer a few comments of my experience of being part of
1:46 am
the foreign office in 2008, and later, as a present observer, although i did not have a formal association with pakistan. pakistan and several other players in the region have made policy mistakes. pakistan has suffered. but it is not all on account of its foreign policy. there are many other dimensions to the conflict in the region. afghans, i would also say they cannot place the blame for all the problems that there are onto others. the first point that i would like to emphasize, because this has been talked about quite a bit in the past, not as much now
1:47 am
i have not met in several years, even while i was in the foreign office, any responsible person from the civilian leadership or the military leadership who would be thinking of the taliban as an asset for the future. the foreign minister of late, and even the army chiefs, have rejected these notions. but i am not going into details, where the taliban is concerned. there is no question of their returning to kabul and the way they did in the mid-1990's. there are many reasons for this.
1:48 am
one can go into the details, but i will skip it for the moment. but there is one thing. pakistan could not treat the taliban as it treated al qaeda. there are demographics, history, and cultural traditions. the iranians will appreciate it as much as any pakistani would. the taliban remain part of the afghan political landscape, but there was a disconnect between the pakistani position and the u.s. position right after 9/11. i think ambassador dobbins made a remark that pakistan's position was not unhelpful, if it was not helpful.
1:49 am
even at that time, pakistan had argued that reconciling with the taliban should be brought into the fold of the process. anyway, that is passed. there have been misunderstandings, and even unfair accusations, that pakistan has been engaged in double dealing. as i said, pakistan could not treat the taliban or the afghan taliban leadership the way it treated al qaeda. the situation after 2009, when
1:50 am
the american position toward reconciliation and toward the taliban started changing -- the situation is a bit different. i would say that after a period of certain tentativeness, today, the reconciliation efforts appear to be iran-lead, which it had to be. pakistan and the united states can play a supportive role. pakistan should be positive and helpful. but it should not be eager, because eagerness can very easily be misinterpreted as having its own agenda or trying to interfere, or trying to support one party or the other. at the same time, i would say there should not be unrealistic expectations from pakistan, with regard to the taliban. we can persuade them to do certain things, but there are limitations.
1:51 am
i would say, generally, we had experience with the mujahideen. at critical times, they never accepted our point of view. the taliban should be free to talk with whoever they want. the can also stay in pakistan, like several million other afghans who work there. certainly, they ought not to misuse this hospitality. pakistan has to be very firm. pakistan and often stand should coordinate and cooperate with each other in controlling cross- border militancy. i personally believe there is no threat to pakistan or afghanistan along this border, except the kind of threat that both face on account of the extremists.
1:52 am
finally, i would have a couple of observations about the question of u.s. forces post- 2014. the question of residual u.s. presence is being discussed now in washington at the highest level. much depends on the status of forces agreement, which is a complex political matter for president karzai. as regards pakistan, pakistan ought to accept whatever is decided. however, from pakistan's point of view, the downside of continued u.s. presence is that
1:53 am
we continue to provide an argument for militants to justify their violent activities. this is the downside, as we looked at it. but as i said, it is for the u.s. government and afghanistan to decide. pakistan should accept whatever it is. in my personal view, there are usually two arguments made in support of continuous u.s. military presence out -- after 2014 -- that it is necessary to keep the army intact and together, and that it is necessary for counter terrorist operations, like the operation of drones. the first argument, that the afghan national army -- the afghan national army has already shown its ability to withstand effectively any attacks from the taliban. and this was quite evident last year, i think, in april, when
1:54 am
the taliban launched a string of incidents. it was basically the afghan national army that was able to counter it very effectively. no army can, however, prevent sporadic violent activity. the pakistan army has not been able to do that. but these kinds of activities do not lead to collapse or overthrow of political systems and governments. they cause pain, no doubt. even one of the transitions ambassador dobbins mentioned before -- here, we have to see whether the system will collapse. the system has been in place, and ambassador dobbins had a great contribution to that, by their own process. that, i do not think, is in
1:55 am
danger of collapse. i personally do not see any reason why the afghan national army should not be able to go on its own, effectively counter any military assault by the taliban or any other military force. you may recall, after the soviet troop withdrawal, they were able to withstand mujahideen forces, which were far more organized in that context. it was only after the soviet union collapsed [indiscernible] as for drones, one comment i would make is that this presents a kind of a paradox. it serves both as a cure, and also as a cause for aggravation.
1:56 am
those who are reading about these know it quite well. to come to extremism and militancy, what is required by both pakistan and afghanistan is to address this challenge closely, cooperatively with each other. that also need to realize the continuation of this conflict is disastrous for both of them. there is, in my view, no scenario after 2014 -- there is no single bullet which will end the violence and the conflict neatly and quickly. my hope is it will taper off and die. there is a road, but that is essentially to help development of the economy.
1:57 am
reconstruction and economic development will generate its own dynamic on civilization. the outside players can best contribute by keeping in check their rivalries, and scrutinizing their concerns with greater diligence. sometimes, these concerns lead to measures which only compound problems. the afghans can take care of their politics and security. in these areas, outside its role has caused complications. there can be trade, of course. >> that is an interesting perspective. i think we will get a lot of questions on that. >> being on this panel, i appreciate the opportunity and the interest. i want to make clear that whatever i say is my opinion. i do not represent the government or anyone in
1:58 am
afghanistan. some important points were raised about afghanistan. i just want to put the major transition afghanistan is going through in a macro perspective. basically, we are going through a transitions. we are going to the political transition, economic transition, social transition, and security transition. each transition provides its own challenges and opportunities. it is the political transition, the upcoming elections -- the good news is that president karzai clearly indicated he is not running. the afghan election commission have put forward a clear and detailed timetable for the upcoming elections. there is a lot of political activity in afghanistan. different parties, different
1:59 am
groups, are getting together. they are talking to each other. , the challenge with the political transition is, first, we do not have the political party system, so we can prepare institutionally. the second challenge is, as much as political leaders in afghanistan are getting together and talking to each other, no one is really taking a lead to take a clear position on certain national issues, because of the uncertainty surrounding afghanistan on one hand, and on the other hand, president karzai being a sitting president. even if he does not run for the presidency, he wants to have the most important influence on determining the succession and outcome of the transition. therefore, i do not think he is going to endorse any person soon. as soon as he endorses a person or political force, he will become a lame duck. people will align themselves for or against that person. naturally, he will delay that process of clearly indicating where he stands on the issue of elections and succession.
2:00 am
the other challenge is that our elections in the past were funded and supervised by the international community. this time, afghanistan once the international community to stay completely out of the elections, both in terms of monitoring, but also in terms of funding. inside afghanistan, the financial and technical ability to run the elections. the second transition is the economic transition. in afghanistan, we are transitioning from a contract economy, from a dependency, into a private sector economy. that is going better than thought. i am involved in that as part of the work i do. i travel frequently to afghanistan. a lot of companies who made a lot of money working for major contractors, doing major construction projects in afghanistan -- roads and airports -- are shifting into housing, into mining.
2:01 am
they are adjusting themselves, aligning to the new reality. there will be some adjustment. but there is a lot more positive economic activities taking place in afghanistan that makes us a lot more hopeful for that transition to take place more successfully. of course, there are impediments. still, access to capital is difficult. the reintegration of afghanistan into the regional economy has challenges. a lot of those challenges are political, not economic. our trade with central asia could be much bigger than it is right now. in both cases, it is not really the infrastructure. it is just a policy that makes it difficult. therefore, it is easy to overcome the challenge. the social transition in afghanistan is a newer
2:02 am
generation of afghans, new leaders taking charge. you can see this. it used to be, when we traveled in afghanistan, different parts of the country, all the complaints were about corruption, u.s. military operation, warlords -- you name it. now, people are complaining about issues like "the internet is too slow." a different discourse is being introduced. "it is difficult to get visas to travel." this is good news. young people are eager to be more connected. just last week, the foundation for afghanistan, which i established, brought about 30 students to washington, to the white house. when you listen to these kids, what they dream of, and what they want to do for afghanistan, it is very hopeful and enlightening. this transition requires a lot
2:03 am
of attention -- the security transition. the transition of taking responsibility, by the afghans, for its national forces. here also, mr. dobbins indicated the capabilities of the afghan security forces are better. the police force still has challenges. where transition has taken place, people are not particularly worried about the fact that the transition is now being carried out by afghan forces. where people are worried the most, the biggest challenge in afghanistan, is not so much insecurity, but uncertainty. what is going to happen to our country? what is going to happen to us? when you ask what if somebody left the province, they will say, we do not know what will happen in trouble. we do not get a clear message from our international
2:04 am
partnership. what are we transitioning to? where are we going? where are you going to fit, with instability in pakistan, hostility in iran, demand for raw material in china, the emergence of india as an economic power? where do we fit in that? all of that is missing. we do not hear a clear message from our political leadership or from our international partners on that issue. what is important for the security -- i just want to touch on them shortly, what makes the transition's successful. there are three factors. first is reconciliation. would we be able to succeed on this? do we have a clear vision about reconciliation among ourselves, meaning pakistan, afghanistan, and the united states? where are the redlines?
2:05 am
what are the parameters of the compromise? who are the terrorists? who are the good and bad taliban? where do we compromise? we have to reach these agreements as a nation, and with our allies. it goes to the other side of the table, to talk to the paula bond. that is the key for reconciliation. another issue impacting the ability of the afghan security forces is the insider attack. sometimes, people are disappointed, and say, how could this happen? how could they turn the guns against us, when we trained them? this is an important issue. as the taliban have indicated, that is their most successful tactic to undermine trust between the afghan security forces and international security forces. it is really the most effective way of destabilizing afghan security forces.
2:06 am
it is key to know why it is happening. the first reason is infiltration. of course, they purposefully infiltrates. we have low recruitment criteria. we do not have a strong national data system to look at who is coming in. the second part is intimidation. when people are enlisting in the force, the taliban are contacting their parents and family and threatening them. when there is violence and uncertainty, and people say the security might deteriorate, it is easy to be intimidated and switch sides. also, using uniform -- i see a lot of people who have been in kabul. you can easily buy an army uniform or police force uniform on the market. you can buy any uniform, if you are looking for it hard. rage and revenge -- sometimes,
2:07 am
the soldiers are personally mistreated. the last item, what they call jihad, is a complex phenomenon. i will make one last point, on the number of the troops. a lot of discussions have gone from 50,000 down to zero, but and forth. -- back and forth. it is not so much the economic constraint of the united states, or the political reality. it should be a combination of all three. first, a definition of the
2:08 am
mission. what the united states wants to accomplish in afghanistan. if the mission is clearly defined, we can consider this will take so many troops. i know that definition is a counter-terrorism presence, not so much counterinsurgency, which could be carried out by afghans. the question is, who is the terrorist? it is the taliban included or not? i do not want to run over my time, but i can discuss this if there is more interest. >> i think we have a comprehensive picture. you mentioned for transitions. what would be the most helpful
2:09 am
thing, in your perspective, for all or any of the particular transitions that outsiders could entertain? >> the most important role the international community generally could play is an economic transition. that makes the political transition possible, and the security transition sustainable. for this, what is needed is working more closely to reintegrate the afghanistan into the regional economy. this includes enhancing and building more power grids. pakistan needs power. it needs access to energy. afghanistan needs power. if you create interdependency
2:10 am
between these countries, especially countries that are not on friendly terms with each other, which will enhance the chances of stability to allot more more expensive projects could be pipelines and others, but at least the national grid, railroads. fortunately, pakistan is extending its railroad into kandahar. the railroad from central asia will connect now across afghanistan, north and south. we can really rebuild afghanistan as a crossroad or roundabout of trade. that is key. internally, improving access to capital in afghanistan by providing political incentives, in terms of political assurance, making more credit available for investment by international companies in afghanistan, allowing afghan companies to have access to easier credit -- these are the
2:11 am
key issues that could help afghanistan on the economic front. more importantly, a clear message about the future of afghanistan that would give the investors and everyone else a sense of confidence to come in and invest. >> thank you. you mentioned, for example, with respect to pakistan, that it is important for pakistan to work with afghanistan to control cross-border incidents. the thing that pakistan, along the lines ambassador jawad just mentioned, can work in other areas, like regional economics? are some of those things available to do? you mentioned not wanting to seem too eager. >> when it comes to reconciliation, i will say that
2:12 am
pakistan has a role not because it claims to have a role, but because of demographics, because of the fact that the taliban leadership, like the mujahideen leadership in the 1990's, happen to be in pakistan. what is it pakistan can do? we can apply some pressure, some persuasion. but if the perception is that we can arm twist anybody to accept any position, that will not be possible for pakistan. this is one point. about eagerness -- the moment you so eagerness, there are red lights everywhere. what is pakistan trying to do? for example, i made a comment
2:13 am
that we should not be seeking a place at the table. there is no need for us. our role is there. but if we try to say in reconciliation, we must play a part, it is certainly going to be misinterpreted, unfortunately. we have a role, and we should play the role. i think those who want us to play the role must also understand our limitations. because of the conflict in afghanistan, and a conflict which now involves pakistan, there are no difficulties. earlier, here in the 1990's, with the iran conflict, here we thought if those would get resolved, there would be communication lines open between pakistan and central asia. there are many projects in
2:14 am
turkmenistan, afghanistan, pakistan. if a gas pipeline could be done, that would be a great project. there are prospects for an alliance from central asia through afghanistan. there are different things that could be developed. >> jim, you have spent a fair amount of time in the situation room or in the white house. the president has talks coming up with president karzai on friday. if you were back in the situation room, developing the positions that might be suggested to him, what would be the two or three points you would make, with respect to the talks? >> as ambassador jawad indicated, the concerns are less about security and more about uncertainty with respect to the
2:15 am
future. i think the degree to which one can address that by laying out a future course for american engagement and for international engagement, the better. the obstacle to that, at least in part, is karzai's desire to drive the hardest burden possible. some of his objectives seem to be rather unreasonable, and even, in some cases, undesirable. this is not something that is entirely in the administration's hands. it has recently put out a statement that it is open to having no american presence at all in afghanistan, military presence, after 2014. that seems a tactic designed to indicate to karzai that he has less leverage in this negotiation then he might otherwise.
2:16 am
personally, i believe that it would be prudent to arrange for a fairly substantial presence, if we are able to do so. but it is important that we avoid the kind of situation we have in iraq, where we did not ask them what they thought or wanted until fairly late in the process. as a result, not only did we fail to achieve an agreement which would allow us to retain a military presence, but we also created the possibility of providing the iraqis a whole range of assistance and advisory programs through our civilian side that they did not want. as a result, we spent a lot of money and a lot of effort to create capabilities which, in the end, the iraqis did not avail themselves of. the earlier that we can come to some understanding with the
2:17 am
afghans, difficult as it is, about what they want, and on that basis, decide what we are prepared to provide, the better. in terms of the troop presence, my view is it is a straight cost to risk ratio. the more you are prepared to pay, the more your risk. the higher risk tolerance, the less you can get away with. you cannot have low cost and low risk. if you want to thousand troops instead of 10,000 troops, you except a much higher risk you are not going to achieve objectives to set. the minimal objective is that afghanistan will not fall to a regime linked to al qaeda of. the lower you go, the higher the risk. it may be small, but it will be higher if you chose a lower number. i care for historic -- for my
2:18 am
personal involvement, more about afghanistan than most americans, so i favor high-cost, low-risk. after all, i only pay $3 million. most americans are tired of it, and will probably choose high- risk, low-cost. >> i believe we are going to have microphones. if you will say your name and who question any member of the panel you like. i will start with harlan almond. >> the report that came up five years ago began, "make no mistake. nato is losing in afghanistan." was slightly softened that to say the u.s. is not winning. frankly, i am much more pessimistic, particularly
2:19 am
concerning the security transition. barring some wild card events -- india-pakistan, and that is not looking particularly good, or an attack on iran, which would change the calculus -- it seems to me that the level of american and western forces required to support the afghan army -- i agree the police are in a much more difficult situation -- by some counts would require in excess of 50,000 people, including contractors, because the afghan army has no air support, medical support, logistics, etc. salaries would run $4 billion a year. who is going to pay them? the obama administration is not likely to cut and run. you see signs in the press to get down to a lower level. level of 6000 is around. if that was to take place, under the afghan security
2:20 am
forces operate without the support in forms of air, logistics, and pay, especially when virtually every nato country wants to get out as quickly as possible? we could see a quicker decline in western presence in 2013, rather than 2014. >> would you like to discuss that first? >> this is a legitimate concern. in fact, our defense minister is in town today at the pentagon, discussing some of these issues. he has come with a detailed list of the enablers the afghan national army needs, including, as you mentioned, long-range artillery and intelligence- gathering capabilities. fixed-wing and rotary aircraft for transportation. we have been completely dependent for all of these
2:21 am
things on nato and our other friends and allies. again, a lot of these equipments are not as expensive as conducting these operations with nato in afghanistan. if there is a political will, it is doable. the same thing as far as the salaries of the afghan national army and police. yes, it is a significant number, considering the afghan economy. or the withdrawal of each international troops from afghanistan, we can sustain 80 afghan national army soldiers on the ground, if there is a willingness to continue with this mission. as you mentioned, to come with a more reasonable definition of success in afghanistan, which has come up to now, then diminished, what it means to succeed here in afghanistan. >> the end of the first row,
2:22 am
right there. >> i would really like to understand a little bit better about the indian part of this triangle. we care more about pakistan, what is going on in the arm. my understanding is that the indians are very active, and it is a triangular relationship between pakistan, india, and afghanistan. >> if you would like, ambassador? >> india has been an important friend of afghanistan, a historic friend and ally.
2:23 am
they are not only involved in enhancing the reconstruction in afghanistan -- they are providing scholarships for more than 1000 afghans every year into different indian universities, which is key to building human capital in afghanistan. their work actually -- in the past few years, there was some hesitation on the part of the united states, because of the hesitancy that exists in pakistan about india's role in afghanistan, not to get india involved in the training of our security forces and other issues. this is diminishing more and more, i think. there is more realism indicating that, at the end of the day, india and china are both in pakistan and have a role to play in afghanistan. there will be a partnership with india, which initially was an issue, because it was thought it might antagonize pakistan. definitely, india has a bigger role to play, provided that some of the bigger conflict that exists in our region,
2:24 am
particularly in kashmir, are left out of this issue. at the end of the day, we think a stable afghanistan is a better friend of pakistan. a weak and unstable afghanistan will in danger pakistan as much as afghanistan. india is providing more than $2 billion of economic assistance. they are getting more interested to get involved in training of the afghan security forces in a professional level, like the police and others, not so much the afghan national army, which needs to continue either through the united states or some of our nato partners, to provide the continuity of what we have started together. >> do you want to say a few words? >> i essentially agree with the ambassador that a stable afghanistan is in the best interest of pakistan and the region. whatever can be done to accelerate the process of stabilization must be done.
2:25 am
as you have also mentioned earlier, he what the international community can do, and pakistan and india can also do, is contribute to economic development. whatever india is doing, pakistan simply cannot have any reservations to that. pakistan herself is also doing. we have scholarships we offer. we have also these refugees. we would like that they should go back, but they continue to be in pakistan, more than 3 million. one aspect is the army. if the indians start training the afghan army, there are concerns. they should be understandable. they should be appreciated. why the afghan army cannot be
2:26 am
trained by nato, for example? one not countries like turkey, or the united states? why do we have to have something the, where people in pakistan, some people, rightly or wrongly, say we are facing a difficult situation? that is why we have a concern. apart from that, nothing else. >> second row, over here. >> hello? mr. jawad, my name is -- >> you are ok. >> director of operations at the world bank. i like your comment that economic prosperity is probably the most important aspect of the transition.
2:27 am
we are speaking about long-term schemes. in rehabilitation of countries, the world bank has taken a lead, oftentimes, in countries in latin america, eastern europe, and many others, and even in pakistan. short-term schemes will development. social development schemes have been put into action which have a lead time for results which are very much shorter than you talk about. to what extent, in afghanistan, have those kinds of schemes and applied? to my mind, in addition to the parallel track with the long schemes, we need shorter schemes, which addresses some of the other concerns about security. wherever there is poverty and lack of opportunity, that is an opening for the taliban to show their bid. to what extent is afghanistan
2:28 am
focusing on short-term development schemes? >> that is a very good point. as you know, when you implement large-scale infrastructure projects, there is no community that relates to them right away. therefore, it is more expensive to maintain them. if you build a highway, you had no communities along the road that says, "this is my road." you have to create a need that the community thinks, this is my project, and this is for me, and i see myself reflected in that. the world bank assistance to create the solidarity program of rural development, which was projects designed based on the priority of the community. there was a development -- they are still around, these
2:29 am
development councils. money has been provided to them by the afghan government. but the construction and oversight is done by the community. they feel responsible to it. those undertakings are very important. they are key. of course, sometimes, they have their own challenges. when you work at the community level in a lot of these projects being implemented, sometimes, the community might tolerate the presence of the taliban on the project. the donor community says, how could you do this? we give you the money, and you still allow the taliban to be around this. this is a harder balance to reach. but there is absolutely -- the microfinance projects have been good not only for empowerment, but also for gender equality. that has been a model in afghanistan, to reach out to smaller rural communities. >> the back row. >> thank you.
2:30 am
i run the u.s.-indian security forum. my question is directed toward the ambassador. the first is a comment. the indo-afghan strategic partnership was signed with mutual hesitation by both parties. nobody rushed into it. that is when,. my question is related to the ethnic composition and the training and support of the army, which ambassador kahn objects to india's role in it. can you comment on afghanistan's role in it? >> i would like to talk about nato's role, longer term.
2:31 am
when the recruitment process started and the security situation was not as challenging as it is today, a lot of the people and listed from the provinces many from the south and north, and some of the leadership of the ministry of defense belong to the people of the north. in the beginning there was some imbalances and the composition and formation of the ministry of defense in the afghan security forces. there is a system in place and extensive efforts to recruit from the provinces of the south. some of these efforts are successful. as you can imagine if you put yourself as chairman in afghanistan, if you enlist as an afghan, you face different levels of [inaudible]
2:32 am
the province is quiet. the taliban are not operating. there's less threat against you and your family. therefore despite the inferences being made, we still have challenges to recruit a member -- members of the security forces from those provinces. we purposely go and try to recruit students from the south or places [indiscernible] since the school system was not to this standard, i does not matter. we're not successful to bring them as much as we want. >> do you want to talk about these issues? >> in terms of who revises the afghan national army, in 2001, we had a plethora of offers. the pakistani, the indian, and the iranian fradkin to me and
2:33 am
said it wanted to collaborate. i thought that we ought to try to devise some arrangement in which i and some limited aspects, countries could participate. others in the administration were opposed to any iranian role. relations between pakistan and india were at a nadir. coins and with 9/11 and the subsequent bond process, a pakistani base -- terrorist group had conducted a large- scale terrorist attack on the indian parliament. the countries were close to war. very close to war. the idea that they would collaborate in some joint venture in afghanistan was more
2:34 am
difficult to conceive then that might be now. relations have to some degree improved. i do not think that india and pakistan between them would be able to substitute for the kind of assistance -- [indiscernible] for some time to come. --the extent the country's countries could agree on some form of joint collaboration, i would not oppose it. but neither would i look to it to shoulder much of the load in the short to medium term. >> from rote. -- front row. >> i write the mitchell reports and also councilmember. fassel -- i wanted to ask the
2:35 am
ambassador about his observations about cost and risk. and to do that in the context of american domestic political setting, just to say that 2014 is not just another year. it is midterms. i wonder if there is a way, if you have done this or could articulate what the risks that you talk about are, and to the extent that it is doable. some sense of risk investment ratioso that people can get some more specificity than saying there is this relationship between risk and cost. it is to delineate what those
2:36 am
risks might be and i in round numbers investments on our resources could be to deal with those. >> level one is we're no longer able to mount operations that suppress terrorist activity in pakistan or afghanistan. employing drones and other forms of counter terrorist strikes. that we can do that only as long as we have a complaint government that is prepared to -- for that purpose it is not something we can do from aircraft carriers in the indian ocean. it is not something we will do from uzbekistan. if we do not have a government in kabul is cooperative, those kinds of activities will go way
2:37 am
and the abilities -- ability to suppress groups that are prepared and would like to target the united states and american allies around the world would be degraded. that is a risk one. the second level of risk is if you could return to a situation in which those kinds of terrorists were able to operate not clandestinely within a state which has weak capacity to suppress them but in a state that is actively collaborating and is prepared to put its facilities at their disposal. before 9/11, al qaeda hijacked a state. they hijacked afghanistan. afghanistan was alive. that is different from its relationship with pakistan or yemen or somalia. where they operate essentially either in an area with no state or in a state that is hostile to them.
2:38 am
but isn't capable of suppressing them to the degree we would like. operating within a state that is actively compliant, obviously, considerably expands their capacity to plan and mount large-scale terrorist operations as we found in september 2001. the worst of all situations is the taliban remain linked to al qaeda and they come back and govern the country. that is something -- the risk of that i do not put that very high. i do not put the cost of reducing that risk further very high, either. if there is as 5% but you could reduce it by spending $4 billion a year, i would argue that is worth $4 billion. other people i would argue what did 9/11 cost us? we could lose a couple of buildings every decade. and a few thousand citizens rather than losing much larger amounts of money.
2:39 am
they will come to a different risk calculations. i do not know if you can reduce this to x% risk and a certain amount of dollars. >> i want to make one comment. there is this concern that a television type might [indiscernible] to my mind there is no such possibility. afghanistan has changed and the investor had mentioned how the preoccupations have changed. i have not been a frequent visitor but i have seen them in the taliban days and i was last year in afghanistan. the activity that is going on, there is a resilience now. which will not allow the
2:40 am
taliban to return. the taliban, the country was hijacked by al qaeda. the government was completely ostracized. there was not a single government except pakistan. it was living in a time warp. therefore, it was possible for al qaeda to be the master of taliban leadership [indiscernible] i do not think that kind of situation is able to return. now that the world is focused on afghanistan. >> i would prepare to spend a few billion dollars to make sure. >> thank you. i work for voice of america.
2:41 am
thanks for the discussion and insight. the first question is the presence of the u.s. troops. there is a possibility that came out yesterday, how will be perceived in pakistan and you're trying to reject the taliban government. where did you see them, on the mountains or on the streets of kabul? we do not see a better political setup in afghanistan from that side.
2:42 am
where do you see them, then? thank you. >> the first question about how well pakistan -- will pakistan see the continued u.s. presence, there is one pakistan government and my anticipation is there will except the agreement at the u.s. government. this is basically a problem between these two governments. pakistan is not a monolith. there is all kinds of spectrums in pakistan. i think also -- who believe the presence of foreign troops is also the sustaining argument of the militants. they must continue as long as
2:43 am
the foreign forces are there. and therefore as i had said, there would be this perception that the continuation may also mean the continuation of these kinds of activities. the counter argument that these activities must stop may be weakened. these are various groups, various parties who have those kinds of views. i anticipate that the government will be accepting. the other thing is where the taliban if they're not here? do not say that they're only in pakistan. in paris there has been a taliban representation. the taliban as part of the
2:44 am
political landscape. this is basically something that should be done by the peace council. pakistan gets involved and your will say that there's a classic but, i read it a long time ago. i off and on read it. to remind myself how intertwined is the history and culture and tradition and demographic of these countries. sometimes our problems become your problems and your problems become our problems. >> do you want to comment on that? >> on the question i think in the contacts that take place between the pakistani army and the government, the army position is -- [indiscernible] they have bigger plans and other intentions.
2:45 am
in the private meeting that is where the position is. the smaller u.s. presence probably will come. there might be concerned. as the ambassador indicated, there are many other forces in pakistan that may have concern about the impact of the duration of security in afghanistan which leads into [indiscernible] in pakistan. in the past in the private meetings, the idea was we're not sure when the attention is focused on afghanistan and pakistan started out with themselves and help to get the americans out of here. >> my question is for the ambassador. it is the follow-up to the
2:46 am
previous question. in your remarks, pakistan still pursues a policy of strategic [indiscernible] in afghanistan. with that in mind, you also mentioned there is some unrealistic expectations from afghanistan and the united states with respect to pakistan's future role in reaching out to some of the taliban, especially the taliban leadership. it props up against u.s. and afghan forces in afghanistan. you said there are some limitations. what are those limitations? >> the limitation is what i had mentioned. we should not be expected to deliver the taliban leadership to a position that maybe will -- you may be wanting them to
2:47 am
take. that would not be possible for us. i said that we have quite an experience of interacting with [indiscernible] and they never agreed to pakistan's point of view. this applied to the leadership and the taliban themselves. when they were rolling afghanistan. to expect that pakistan should be able to make them except, for example, the renne constitution, we will not be able to do that. this will be between the harpies -- high peace council and the taliban and how the taliban are dealt with. this is for iran. they are debilitated and this is the way to proceed toward reconciliation.
2:48 am
[indiscernible] that is for the renne leadership. pakistan should not be expected -- we encourage them to be part of the process. we are trying to do probably now, we should do that. the other thing he mentioned about this strategy? -- depth, they have no chance of getting in a government controlling of afghanistan. in the -- even in the 1990's when they were strong. now the relationship has completely changed. how can there be -- it does not work out and this was never a policy.
2:49 am
we never saw them. we did not go after them. we did not count them likely how did al qaeda. almost all the guantanamo bay detainees were captured in pakistan with the help of the pakistani. we treated them differently. as we mentioned, we wanted them to be part of the process in beginning. the strategy depth, it was in nonsensical idea. he did not explain it. afterward there had been a retreat but there has never been -- this phrase has never been part of the policy statement ever.
2:50 am
this has been very catchy and all that has come about, pakistan is seeking strategy dabs. -- strategic depth. how can we seek a strategy depth when the security threat is through india. >> my question relates to any joke. -- to nato. apart from the regular discussion nato has on withdrawal, the new mission post 2014, there is a great deal of effort into trying to push regional cooperation post-2014. this has proven to be rather difficult, engaging central asians and figuring out a role for russia. i was wondering from the three
2:51 am
panelists whether you see some role for nato, some value added to push the regional cooperation through partnership policies. whether that is something that would be useful. thank you. >> there have been a number of summits and high-level meetings over the last couple of years that have established a rhetorical from work and also a framework for support for conciliation. i think that is helpful. i think it is worth continuing to push in this regard. there has been some improvement in relations between india and pakistan. the border has been open to commerce in a way it was not before.
2:52 am
these are fairly important elements. nato is a political role is of somewhat limited importance in terms of its influence. it certainly is worth pursuing. >> would pakistan sea of positive role? >> [indiscernible] what is the role that neda sees for itself? is that military when we talk about nato? is it economic? is it political? nato does not appear to wear so many hats. when we talk about nato, we're talking about military. that has already been discussed but certainly other organizations, everyone has an important political and economic role. i think nato can also help support the iraq army to do a
2:53 am
better job. we're in favor of that. there was one mention about india and the transit train. that will come at a certain point. there are some things if only the conflict situation gets resolved in afghanistan. >> your question was on the role in northern afghanistan. this is a key important way of connecting afghanistan to the rest of the world. that is important for us to reduce dependency on other transit trials that are becoming important in afghanistan. definitely nato countries have a more important role to play then nato as an organization.
2:54 am
a lot of activity about nato activity is an organization in central asia. they do -- if the rules are conducted like a government of france or germany, or other allies, it is more effective. the vehicle should be different because they have influence and they can help out by connecting afghanistan to the rest of the world. when the route was to terman, the call that the no. distribution network. my favorite term as the silk road. this is reviving its traditional role. >> i am with the embassy here. i have a question to the
2:55 am
ambassador regarding economic development. it seems to be extremely important. fighting [indiscernible] in afghanistan and in the region. this aspect will affect the economic transition for and development and the eventual successful outcome. could you talk about what is the current state of affairs as far as what tools are being employed and how do you see this as being successfully battled for the future economic development in afghanistan? thank you. >> the interment of the -- environment of the narcotrafficker forces in uncertainty. when they raise an orchard or vineyard and turns it into a poppy field -- when he is not sure what is learned happened to him or his family, they turn to narcotics.
2:56 am
it takes three months to grow it. it does not need refrigeration or economic integration, nothing. if we see an increased degree of uncertainty, we would probably see more poppy cultivation. it would be listed economic activities. -- illicit economic activities. the leadership [indiscernible] in the areas where the economy is thriving, we have seen a reduction of narcotics and cultivation of the poppy. in areas where we see most of the fighting, that is where most of the poppies are grown. >> let me close with a final question. jim used a number of statistics. one that struck me is i have
2:57 am
the right to a 52% of the afghan population thought the country is going on in the right direction. my question to each of you, what is your view? is the country going in the right direction and are you optimistic or pessimistic as we look forward for the next two years and after 2014? >> if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. the country is going in the right direction compared to where we started certainly. people feel more confident about the way their life is conducted. also as i mentioned, there has to be a bit of a relation [indiscernible] in the region. >> i also agree and the
2:58 am
statistics were new to me. it is heartening that 52% of people in afghanistan feel the country is going in the right direction. i do not know the figures for pakistan. one other thing. some of the preoccupations in terms of thinking and concerns which the investor mentioned, what is the future of the country? where does it stand with the international community? these are common questions which are asked in any other normal society especially in the region. this is a very positive sign. the situation may be floated, there are definite positive signs and i experienced them when i visited last year.
2:59 am
it was a different afghanistan that i visited five or six years ago. >> most of the trend lines are positive. the ones that you can detect using empirical data. i'm not sure that the trend lines of american policy are quite so positive. there is an interaction between the two. to end with a few other statistics, the situation has changed since 2001. today 4/5 of afghan households have [indiscernible] -- have radios. one half have tv's and three- quarters of afghan households have telephones. the statistics, for radius they
3:00 am
may have been fairly high. for tvs and telephones they would have been zero. there connected with each other and with the rest of the world in ways that are completely different from where they were 10 years ago.
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
5:01 am
5:02 am
5:03 am
5:04 am
5:05 am
5:06 am
5:07 am
5:08 am
changed and appealed to become more workable. renewable fuels are a key part of our energy infrastructure and our energy equation but not at the system or policy does not work. in 2007 when it was first enacted, it was put in place, driven by the need to wean us off for the sources of oil.
5:09 am
today we see that occur primarily due to the vast domestic energy production in the united states. new day, new circumstances. we need to make them more effective and workable. that is why we will pursue policies this year to change chernobyl to standards. >> considering what? >> [inaudible] >> it is being very closely watched. there are moving equipment back and forth. they are not only have a regulated but highly monitored
5:10 am
and scrutinized in what they're doing. that needs to move for. this is a perfect example of ways we need to cooperate with regulators but at the same time, allow for realistic development of those resources. the ending close to look and taken advantage of by the canadians, russians, and others. the united states be more thoughtful about our own interests. that is a perfect example of what shell is doing now. >> have a side of renewable fuel rules, what policies are you most concerned about in the coming weeks and months? >> we are working closely on a number of things. but rule making. we have to manage the risk better. the government needs to step up in that role. you look at the mandate on the renewable fuel standard i
5:11 am
mentioned earlier. . the epa has authority to tax the industry would just cost us millions of dollars to provide revenue to the government. that is a problem. bad public policy. also horizontal drilling. now we are looking closely at issues like --and they have put those proposals offer the time being. those are but a few. i have a long list. co>> had been noticed any change
5:12 am
in the relationship is between the industry and reputation with plurality of population. what is your take on that >> we are pleased with our success to date and on going out region educational efforts, particularly with the american people. congress is a lagging indicator. the response to a -- the key is to educate the american public and the courage them to speak out. we're very pleased with our success to date. we see record high support for the oil and natural gas industry, now exceeding 70%.
5:13 am
ec the american public becoming more active in this debate, the more they understand, and the potential opportunity for the country. we are pleased with our dialogue with the american public. it will be on investing in america's future. if you look on his last high numbers of investments we are making, $545 billion a year. over $1 trillion every two years. the private sector specifically is investing in our domestic economy. this is a big deal. the stimulus program congress enacted a few years ago was about $700 billion. to stimulate the whole economy. we as an industry are doing $1 trillion every two years. there is broad public support for america's oil and natural
5:14 am
gas industry. we believe that support will continue to grow. we are pleased with the way it is interacting in the public dialogue. the new chairman of the energy committee talked about important areas to improve our oil and natural gas production. these things did not happen overnight. the trends are going in a positive direction. we have multimillion-dollar programs and we will continue to advance those programs joint board to eight in of the public dialogue. let's try the call in once again. >> this is peter johnson from montana. habitable role -- how big of a role has the development of the area had in u.s.? >> the formation in north dakota
5:15 am
and eastern montana he is referencing has been very significant. north dakota over the past two or three years has set record production every year in today produces around 750,000 barrels a day. the only state to surpass that is texas which produces about 1.1 million. not dakota and the past year has now surpassed alaska, and california to become the no. 2 oil producer. expectations are that will continue to grow, perhaps not as fast as it is to date. 8-10 years ago, north dakota produced about 60,000 barrels a day. this is how significant a change the technology has been in terms of development of resources, of
5:16 am
the deaths of a case of the balkan formation. -- in the case of about information. >> her are you confident it will not happen or do you see no opportunity for reducing greenhouse gases within the requirements set a? >> there are two dimensions. that is clearly of concern. something we believe should be handled appropriately. the second piece, we should not overlook the best production of the nation's natural gas resource today which has resulted in the price of about $13 down to $3 and the more
5:17 am
consumption of natural gas in the electric utility sector has brought greenhouse emissions in the united states to 1992 levels. the required no government mandate or regulation. it was simply a matter of what the economy produced as a result of producing a cleaner- burning fuel. i believe what the epa should do, they need to be thoughtful. this goes back to the question about access. we have a cleaner burning fuel which is demonstrated a positive impact. in the oil and natural gas industry is a leader in low carbon committing technologies but the fuel we have been allowed to produce in vast quantity is what is driving
5:18 am
that to date. >> do you see opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases? >> won the reciting -- from the refining sector, we are constantly and improving what we're doing in terms of the missions. we need to look of their coming from -- look at where they are coming from. >> we are largely a pocketbook and nation. a year ago a year last contrast, oil prices and gasoline prices were approaching record highs. what has changed since your last address?
5:19 am
>> we continued the evolution of this opportunity. hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created since last year. talking to one of my friends today, he was in the middle east last week and commented that what we are talking about here is the topic of conversation ni the middle east, europe, asia. why? it is a game changing opportunity. we have the ability to shift that access of energy power to
5:20 am
the united state. will we do it? it's evolving in a positive way. your seeing more and more bipartisan support. north carolina could become a major natural-gas producer. the governor recently elected asked what one of his top priorities is. he's a to make north carolina and energy state. arkansas, places we do not traditionally think of as energy state. this opportunity spans the entire country. michigan, ohio, the list goes on. more and more people are becoming aware of this opportunity in public support for a book continue to grow. >> you mentioned a couple times
5:21 am
-- that study said exports would not happen with today's economic. cresses are either too high or abroad to low. -- prices are either too high for a lot, too low. are we setting ourselves up for a difficult situation where we need more natural gas but the price is not as low as it is today? ? government should not intervene and make a date of the exportation of the natural gas. we should stay focused on his potential and benefits.
5:22 am
we should not look to discriminate against its potential export. is a net positive benefit to the united states. the question you posed gets into the very issues are industry looks at on a daily basis. what does the future look like? most of the decision they are making today are based on 15, 20 year outlooks. this is where the private sector performs well. and they get to take those risks. should not be shifted to the taxpayer. what it does provide for as looking into the future as to what the market might be. and there are many opportunities to expand the manufacturing footprint in the united states today. all that will impact the very discussion. the important part is that
5:23 am
whatever level it may or may not be, and this halted for the u.s. domestic economy. >> let's turn to the phone than one more question left. >> your attitude toward soe investment -- if you think that there's going to be more investments from china and if you think there's a level playing field. what is your take on a going forward?
5:24 am
>> i do normally have an opinion of that. we see with the canadians have done. investment coming out of china. clearly from our industry's perspective, that operate on a global basis and their general view is to allow the market to work so there is no artificial limitations or expansions in the marketplace. other than that, i have not given that much thought. >> last question ticket summary we could not accommodate -- last question. sorry we could not accommodate calls from the phone. >> there were some big fights in the and department of defense. do you expect there to a fight with regard to epa and energy?
5:25 am
can you describe in the conversations you'll have it could go a house -- any conversations you are having with the white house? >> i think there will be some chagnes. -- changes. what's important is we give scientifically individuals, there are a lot of issues surrounding that. in the science areas is where we need to stay focused. whoever the president would like to survive his discretion, that is his call. i would not want to judge where he is going. we would seek to have a collation ship to based policy
5:26 am
-- to have a good relationship to base policy. we have been having a good dialogue over the past couple months. we have areas we disagree on. we represent a broader industry that sometimes sees the world differently than a regulator. people the regulation should be thoughtful --we believe regulation should be thoughtful and based in science. >> we welcome the opportunity to work with whoever the president confirms and look forward to continuing the dialogue based on sound science and on tour philosophy or ideology >> thank you all for joining us. happy new year. >> thank you for being here today. thank you very much. [captioning performed by
5:27 am
national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the new congress is expected to debate the nation's immigration laws. we will talk to fawn johnson of national journal about congress and immigration. then a discussion on the naturalization process and requirements for u.s. citizenship. we will hear from dan stein and representative from the national council of la raza. we will also take your calls, e- mails and tweets. washington journal, each morning at 7:00 eastern on c- span. the mostit what's famous movie stars -- hollywood's most famous movie stars. all part of the contingent of
5:28 am
celebrities in the maritime and set a retirement talents to the national war effort. >> how popular culture presented the war. how was the war presented in movies from the 1940's, comic books, athletic events, tin pan alley and music from the 1940's? this weekend, popular culture of world war ii with randy roberts. saturday night at 8:00 and 10:00 eastern on c-span3. >> national governors' association held its -- held its first state of the state address. the delaware governor and
5:29 am
oklahoma governor spoke about how politics in washington affect state governments. during q and a, they discussed immigration, gun control and health care policy. this is an hour. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for coming to what we hope will be an annual address from the chair and by share of the national governors' association. it is my privilege to serve as a governor of delaware and as the chair of nga. i'm john but the by share, oklahoma governor -- i am joined by the co-chair, oklahoma governor. we would go into an
5:30 am
unprecedented congress. i do want to take a moment to recognize somebody here with us this morning. our relationship with the, our state's national guard forces is incredibly important. the national guard as a vital resource in a murder to response -- vital resourece in ce in emergency response. we are honored to be joined today by the chief of the national guard bureau. thank you for being here for the important work you do.
5:31 am
so, through the nga we identified priorities for the states and we find common ground we are bipartisan, and it should come as no surprise how much we could accomplish when we work together. as you will hear today, governors and federal partners have been successful in crafting the command structure so the states can respond in times of natural disaster. we also worked to build a national communications network, in gauging the on issues ranging from transportation to education, to preserving the capabilities of our national guard. while each governor has his or her own unique circumstances, we all have to facilitate job growth, improve schools, and be financially responsible. as much as we do in our states, our economies are tightly linked to the national economy, and as a result, our state's prosperity, the prosperity of our citizen depends in no small
5:32 am
measure on the ability of all public servants in washington to come together on a path forward. uncertainty here in federal support hurts both our economies and the federal budget, and the implications are incredibly important. governors have been working with the president, the vice president, and congressional leadership to find solutions to help put our country back on firm financial footing. one of the largest elements of the uncertainty concerned elements of the fiscal cliff that were either postponed or taken out of the reason -- recent relief act of 2012 as the only postponed reducing grants to states.
5:33 am
intimate reform was not addressed, and no action was taken regarding the federal debt limit. if the debt limit does not increase soon, there will be disruptions to capital spending and markets that could greatly impact state operations. until there are resolved, states can not make financial plans that will address the needs of our citizens. state economies are slowly recovering, and many places are just now returning to the revenue that we collected in 2008. during the last five years, governors have cut $337 billion from our state budgets. we streamlined our work. in some cases we stopped doing things altogether. for example, we consolidated agencies, improved delivery systems, and in some cases we closed outdated facilities.
5:34 am
we continue to aggressively managed our liabilities, including around our pension system, and certainly around the ever-growing cost of health care. sometimes, that is not enough. we have had to curtail benefits. some states reduced workforces. in total, the actions we have taken and made states more productive, more efficient, but at times our people have suffered, and, of course, we cannot afford to wait when it comes to moving the needle on jobs and businesses. we governors are keenly aware of the obstacles job-seekers face every day and much of our effort is focused on removing these obstacles. for example, there are 40 separate federal programs that focus of providing workforce services, especially around employment and occupational skills.
5:35 am
we want programs to continue, but we also want more flexibility to implement more state-based systems, work-based systems that would be better to -- able to respond to the needs of job-seekers and business. each governor wants to be the jobs governor, and importantly, we want to be the jobs governor for everybody in our state, and that includes returning veterans, a group where a partnership between state and federal government could be especially helpful. it also includes be the jobs governor for people in our states with disabilities. we want them to engage and participate fully in community life. i have chosen to focus my nga
5:36 am
chair initiative with the ways states could help people with disabilities find more employment opportunities. this initiative is called a better bottom line. it is designed to raise awareness of the untapped talent of people with disabilities, and how would can contribute to the bottom line, and finding ways states and businesses can partner. as governors, we also very much appreciate how important step of the art roads, bridges, telecommunications, wastewater -- other infrastructure is to our nation put the economy. governors have taken a lead role advocating for infrastructure investments at a time when our investments in this country are falling way behind the infrastructure investments in so many other countries, and that is why it is important that the nation that detects tax- exempt financing for infrastructure, and the deductibility of state and local taxes which provide critical support to infrastructure projects.
5:37 am
many of us have used innovative financing tools to be private/public partners, to help mitigate the public funding shortfalls in to shore up some of our infrastructure. it is really important that we have long-term federal funding stability. some of these infrastructure projects are long term. we also support the investments in its the structure project through existing and maybe some self-sustaining mechanisms. the issue of uncertainty around the federal tax code is also a big concern.
5:38 am
the reform. it could have an impact on states. we have had a taxable -- task force headed up by the governor of pennsylvania and the governor of kentucky, and they will develop concrete suggestions, consisted of where the interest of the state and federal governments intersect. it will also address longstanding tax policies such as the need to allow states to essentially level the playing field between main street, retailers, and online sellers when it comes to sales taxes. treating the ball the same is an issue of fairness that congress can and should resolve. and-in-hand with job creation comes education. every governor has an important
5:39 am
role to play in what is the most important future-oriented investments that we make, and that is around education. across the country, governors are insuring efforts to students, insuring they can always see the world class education that will prepare them for success. today 49 states and territories have voluntarily adopted a common core standards. these are high standards that are consistent across states. they provide clear expectations that everyone can work for together. most importantly, it is a foundation that we can build on to ensure that our students are well prepared with the skills and knowledge at they need to compete with the very best of the best from around the world.
5:40 am
states and schools are working to implement new standards, upgrade training in standards, and you institute some of the initiatives under race to the top. nga has a role to ensure that some of the things we learned our shared with other states and the federal government. with that, i'm going to ask governor markell -- fallin to talk about some other state priorities. [applause] >> thank you very much, governor markell. it is a pleasure to be here. we appreciate your leadership. it has been a great pleasure to work with you.
5:41 am
i'm here to talk to you about the nga and the critical issues facing our states. as governor markell has pointed out, we think states are the laboratories of democracy that can be on the front line of helping to develop policies, been able to solve some of our nation's most pressing issues, whether it involves economic growth, job creation, education, focusing on government waste, and many other issues, but to provide these solutions we need room to be able to reform our state policies and objectives. the federal government can and should be a partner in helping us to develop good public policy. a strong partnerships is vital to best serve all citizens of the nation. we call the flexible federalism.
5:42 am
-- recall that flexible federalism. you know what i mean. the letters are -- governors are committed to a collaboration with congress and the administration to maintain and promote a balanced system. just last month, governor markell and i joined president obama to outline what flexible federalism will look like. the effort deserves to be front and center, because how washington deals with those issues will have an immediate, direct affect on our states and our budget.
5:43 am
30 of the 50 states that we have have had job growth, and we have been able to get to pre- recession levels. oklahoma has been one of those states to experienced job growth. we have now come from seventh% unemployment to 5.2%, one of the highest job growth rates in the nation, but i have to tell you, it was not easy. if -- we have to make good policy and shared sacrifice. as president and congress will address sequestration, we know as governors that spending cuts will be necessary and inevitable, as are the tough decisions they have to make, but we also asked the president, congress in leaders to keep four points in mind.
5:44 am
first is federal reform should produce savings for the federal government and the states. deficit reduction should not be accomplished by merely shifting those costs down to our states, or imposing unfunded mandates. states should be given increased flexibility to create efficiencies and achieve results. lastly, congress should not impose maintenance of effort provisions of states as a condition of receiving federal funding. in other words, it states receive federal cuts, washington should not demand the same level of service without providing the same level of funding. essentially, all of these points can and will be coming down to flexibility and partnership. we need the flexibility to take care of the unique needs of our citizens and the challenges of our states.
5:45 am
what we do not need is a one- size-fits-all solution or more unfunded federal mandates passed on to our states. the need to be treated as partners, not underlings. we want to work to implement good public policy. as we told congressional leaders, reducing the deficit by shifting costs to the state is not indicative of the good partnership. whether it is deficit reduction or other pressing national issues, we feel the two principles will guide these relationships with the federal government and the state. the principles are the flexibility and the partnership. i will give you a couple of examples. take health care, for instance. health care in this costs remain a critical challenge to the country. medicaid remains one of our biggest budget issues for many
5:46 am
of our states, requiring more stephen federal funding when you combine the two than education in our budgets. in 2011, total medicaid spending increased at an unsustainable rate of over 10%, and in response states are currently creating and exploring ways that we can look at reforms for expanding reforms and also for financing and delivering health care. we would like to see the administration to embrace innovation at the state-level by speeding up the consideration of waivers, and looking on the more favorably as we present those to the administration. unfortunately, many states have found the waiver process can be very long, difficult and time- consuming to prepare. in my state of oklahoma, for instance, we have had a long
5:47 am
term waiver we have used in our state to develop a program that best meets our needs called insured oklahoma, of partnership between the state and the federal government, between the employer and the employee to provide affordable insurance to low-income, working oklahomans. it has helped. tens of thousands have received access. unfortunately, we received words that insure oklahoma and the waiver could be in jeopardy, putting the long-term sustainability of our highly successful program in question. as a governor in oklahoma, i want to work with the administration to preserve the program, and as the vice chair of the nga i want to encourage states to look at ways to innovate, and create better public policy.
5:48 am
we believe states have a great deal of potential to change the delivery of health care and medicaid and that the states are the vehicle for that change. to help navigate the various complexities of our health care policy, the nga as work together as a group to unveil a brand new web site called state health policy options, where we as governors can look at what other states are doing the best practices, what works and what does not work. i want to encourage our federal governors to take advantage of that website. the site is a virtual resource center that will make it easier to explore potential solutions on health care problems. the website also provides policymakers with expert analysis and best practices adopted in states that are
5:49 am
working to improve health care access, affordability and quality. we believe this will be a great opportunity to show off the constructive policy states can pursue if we are given the freedom and flexibility to do so. on the health-care fund, governors are also tackling one of the fastest growing drug problems of the century, and that is the abuse of prescription drugs. initiative, chaired by the governor of alabama seeks to develop and implement a comprehensive, coordinated strategy to reduce prescription drug abuse across seven participating states. the lessons learned from this initiative and its conclusion will be shared with each state, helping us to showcase effective policy to treat addiction, enforce the law, and better protect against prescription drug abuse from experts.
5:50 am
i hope i have made it clear -- at it is. i hope i have made it clear that the states and the nga can be significant partner in health care and deficit reduction, but we are also partner in one of our greatest priorities to the national security. governors remained committed to the members of our armed services, especially the men and women of all or national guard, who play a critical role in responding to emergencies at home, and suddenly fighting alongside active military men and women overseas. at the end of october we saw a hurricane on the east coast that provided a major test for dual status command that we have been able to negotiate through our national governors' association. if these commanders are typically national guard officers that have been trained to commend.
5:51 am
but the reports are that the the arrangement has worked well, and improved responsiveness. nearly 12,000 national guard men and women from 21 states responded to that crisis, and how to save lives and protect homes and businesses along the -- helped to save lives, and protect homes and businesses along the east coast's -- east coast. we'll continue to work with the department of defense and congress to better leverage our national guard, cost- effectiveness, and the high level of experience, was also preserving the military capacity for our nation. of course, the safety and security of our citizens is crucial. as congress indeed administration examine alternatives to the current package of federal grants, governors will work to insure the first responders are equipped with the tools they
5:52 am
need to accomplish life-saying missions. the nation has begun development of one of these critical tools by providing sufficient radio spectrum needed for the construction of a broadband network for public safety communications. the nga was instrumental in a critical legislation that will play a strong role in the parliament, and means -- in the development and maintenance of this network. this will help first responders develop the most reliable condition capacity in our nation. in addition, governors are looking that the growth of cyber terrorism, and the attacks and threats our nation faces. we think is important to include a critical infrastructure as they begin to look at ways to protect our nation.
5:53 am
nga recently created the resource center led by the governor of maryland, martin o'malley, and the governor of michigan, rick schneider. it is examining the role public policy can and should play in insuring adequate cyber security for state-owned and state-based infrastructure, and that includes services like looking at our data, communication systems, our banking systems, water systems, electrical grids, and water energy companies. we are working with policymakers and representatives from private industries and institutions to affectively and strategically identify and address cyber security policy issues within the states. finally, i want to talk for a moment about the energy and energy security. i am proud to say that my state of oklahoma, working along with
5:54 am
democratic governor from colorado, has teamed up with 22 other states to work for the conversion of our state automobile fleets from traditional gas-powered vehicles and trucks to natural gas vehicles. we -- when we come by all of our state's purchasing power we were able to let a national bid which has driven down the price of cng-powered vehicles by thousands of dollars, making the vehicles more affordable for state budgets and the private sector. each automobile has the potential to save $20,000 in fuel costs, freeing up resources for priorities like education and health care. just as important, our initiative supports the
5:55 am
production of american-made natural gas and the creation of american jobs, which will once again benefit our local economies and help our state budgets. it is stage for the ability to increase -- it sets the stage, excuse me, for the ability to increase national -- natural gas is the structure and fueling stations, and it supports a very important fuel source for our nation to help us to be able to become more energy independent as a nation. so, as you can tell, we are thinking very big, and governors are thinking very big. we are optimistic about our states, and the role that they play in making our nation more prosperous. we believe if we are given the flexibility, and if we are able to have a partnership in making good public policy,, then we can all work together with the
5:56 am
state and federal governments to be able to benefit all americans in finding solutions to problems and challenges that our nation faces. that is a message of hope as we move into 2013. i want to say thank you to all of you for being here, and governor markell, thank you for your leadership, and all you have done to bring together the governors and the public and the private sector to have this important discussion. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor fallin, and we would be pleased to take questions from members of the media.
5:57 am
>> microphone coming to you. >> one is sure you did the mentioned is gun control. can you tell me how the figures into the government -- governor's agenda? >> it will work to leave for different governors, but i can tell you we will be thinking about it in delaware, in reaction to the awful tragedy in connecticut, and two years ago i might of been the only governor to introduce the legislation. i introduced four bills. three of them were passed aired at this point, my view is there are three pieces. one has to do with access to mental health, something we've been focused on for some time,
5:58 am
increasing access to medical health in our state. the second is around school security. we actually kicked off last year a robust process to make sure that every school has a good safety plan. in our state, for a long time, every school has been required to have the safety plan, but the quality has been very, so we kicked off the idea of every school having a plan focused and not just making sure that teachers and other school based personnel are prepared to be the first act is, but to also make sure the first responders know what the layout of the school looks like before they get there. the third piece has to do with guns. in the next few days, i will be rolling out initiatives around all three of those, but i think it is less likely that nga as an organization will have been initiative, but we do appreciate the initiative -- initiation by the white house who has invited all governors.
5:59 am
we appreciate that aldrich. -- outreach. >> thank you, governor markell. nga has not taken an issue, as each a distant with its own needs, but first of all our hearts in prayers go out to the people that suffered tremendously. we in the state of oklahoma have taken steps to encourage our local schools to pull out their emergency plans, to have drills, to not let the planes gather dust on the shelves, to rehearse those things come to update the plans as they need to. we have also been working with our mental health director to look at our services in our look at our services in our state to make sure that

tv
Capitol Hill Hearings
CSPAN January 10, 2013 1:00am-6:00am EST

News/Business.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Pakistan 80, Taliban 21, U.s. 21, Nato 18, India 17, Us 16, United States 13, Oklahoma 10, Washington 9, Markell 6, Asia 6, Al Qaeda 5, Kabul 5, America 5, China 5, Manhattan 5, Afghanistan 4, Etc. 4, Karzai 4, New Yorkers 4
Network CSPAN
Duration 05:00:01
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 1/10/2013
Views
97